A comprehensive collection of open-ended interview questions for vetting back-end developers, covering design patterns, databases, concurrency, and more.
Back-End Developer Interview Questions is a community-driven list of open-ended questions for evaluating back-end engineering candidates. It helps interviewers move beyond trivia to discuss design patterns, system architecture, databases, and real-world coding scenarios. The resource is designed to foster deeper conversations about software principles and practical problem-solving.
Hiring managers, technical interviewers, and engineering leads who vet back-end developers. It's also useful for developers preparing for interviews or seeking to self-assess their knowledge across back-end domains.
Unlike rigid question banks, this collection focuses on discussion-driven questions that reveal how candidates think, not just what they know. It covers both technical depth and soft skills, inspired by real-world collaboration and pair programming scenarios.
A list of back-end related questions you can be inspired from to interview potential candidates, test yourself or completely ignore
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
The README lists over 15 categories from design patterns to security, ensuring a wide range of back-end concepts like concurrency, databases, and distributed systems are addressed.
Questions are intentionally open-ended without answers, encouraging discussions that reveal problem-solving approaches, as stated in the philosophy to assess thought processes over memorization.
It includes practical code snippets and scenarios, such as memory leaks and SQL injection, allowing interviewers to evaluate hands-on debugging and application of principles.
Covers team management, project lifecycle, and professional development questions, helping assess candidates' collaboration and mindset beyond pure technical knowledge.
The README explicitly states 'I didn't include any,' which can be challenging for inexperienced interviewers who may lack the expertise to evaluate open-ended responses effectively.
With hundreds of questions across broad topics, it's easy to misuse by asking too many, as cautioned in the README against using every question on one candidate, risking unfocused interviews.
While it promotes conversation, it offers little advice on structuring interviews or scoring responses, leaving users to design the process from scratch without best practices.